MANDATORY DRUG SENTENCES BASED ON DOSAGE UNITS

On Aug. 9, the Observer printed as the Letter of the Day an article
entitled "Reader agrees with mandatory sentence column." It was signed
Robert Sharpe, Arlington, Va. The Observer failed to mention that he
is a program officer of the Drug Policy Alliance in Washington D.C. --
an organization funded primarily by George Soros whose object is to
legalize all drugs and thereby deflate the alleged supremacy of the
United States in the world.

Sharpe's comments are dishonest. One only needs to look at his closing
statements to see the fallacy of his arguments "Drug abuse is bad, but
the drug war is worse." These aren't even his words but rather are the
oft-repeated mantra of the Drug Policy Alliance.

Recently, we have been seeing more and more attacks in the media on
mandatory minimum sentences, especially in drug cases. The media and
others like the Drug Policy Alliance seem to consider mandatory
minimum sentences not only as racially biased but also a cause of
prison overcrowding leading to the release of the "really bad"
criminals. With their ultimate goal being the legalization of drugs,
these groups have incorporated the charges into a larger,
well-designed attack on law enforcement's response to the drug problem.

A factor that determines differing penalties for possession or sale of
different drugs is the definition of a "significant player" in drug
distribution. This status is established by the threat a particular
drug poses to the user and society, the amount in which the drugs are
dealt, the street value, the nature of the drug and the marketing
techniques. For example, one gram of LSD, five grams of crack and 50
grams of powdered cocaine trigger the minimum federal trafficking
sentences. Perhaps the most significant element is the dosage unit.
Crack hits are typically .1 to .15 grams. Mere users do not tend to
buy, nor can they usually afford to buy the 50 or so hits contained in
five grains of crack at one time. A person in possession of five grams
of crack in fact possess approximately 50 hits while that same amount
in powder form represents from five to 20 dosages. As one Minnesota
legislator stated: "Possession of a bomb ought to be punished more
severely than unlawful possession of bullets." In the vast majority of
cases, mandatory minimum sentences apply to significant players in
drug distribution.

And who are we focusing on here? It seems to me that the focus is on
the victimizers, not the victims. Drug dealing -- contrary to what
some want us to believe -- is far from a victimless crime. Who are the
victims of the drug trade? What are the consequences if we eliminate
mandatory minimum sentences? I think we all know the answers to those
questions.

Why is it that our system resorted to mandatory minimum sentences in
the first place, especially for drug crimes? The answer is at least
two-fold:

The public was fed up with criminals not going to jail.

As then-Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, told the New York Times in July
1993, mandatory minimum sentences were a massive vote of no confidence
in the judiciary of the United States by Congress and state
legislators.

There was a wide disparity in sentencing based primarily on judge
shopping. It doesn't take lawyers long to find out which judges give
the most lenient sentences.

Many criminals, especially drug offenders, got little or not jail. In
one of the first cases I prosecuted, the defendant had about 23 or 24
prior convictions (two-thirds for possession and one-third for
distribution) had never been sentenced to jail.

The public has no desire to go back to the old system and the polls
show that they want strong and long sentences.

The very nature of the drug trade requires that prosecutors have a
tool with which to deal with traffickers.

Without the threat of stiff penalties, there is no incentive for these
offenders to cooperate in investigations, which is often the only way
that law enforcement can move up the distribution chain. Obviously,
Congress recognizes this by giving federal prosecutors the right to
petition for remission in cases of "substantial assistance." I know
from my own experience on the state level that this ability to plea
bargain with defendants who had lengthy sentences hanging over their
heads was the only way we could ever get defendants to cooperate.

Contrary to popular belief, and anecdotal information to the contrary,
despite months of investigation, Sen. Charles Schumer's, D-N.Y.,
Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, Committee on the
Judiciary, found in 1993 very few egregious cases where violations of
the federal drug statutes resulted in lengthy sentences for
"non-violent first offenders."

Clearly we must develop a comprehensive program to fight drugs,
combining aggressive law enforcement, swift and certain punishment,
education, prevention and real rehabilitation efforts. Mandatory
minimum sentences can and should be part of a comprehensive drug strategy.

Terrence P. Farley

First Assistant Ocean County Prosecutor Toms River

The Observer mistakenly omitted the name of the group Sharpe
represents from his letter.